Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations
russiaun.ru

We would like to welcome Mr. Inzko, High Representative for the Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is with a great deal of attention that we have familiarized ourselves with Mr. Inzko’s report to the Security Council (see S/2016/395, annex) and listened to his briefing today. However, we must be candid. The assessments that he made do not promote national reconciliation in that long-suffering country. That is quite unfortunate, as national reconciliation and the promotion of a mutually respectful relationship among the country’s peoples are today gaining key importance given the challenges faced by Bosnia and Herzegovina. Once again, we are forced to note that the High Representative’s report is far from being objective and balanced in nature. It merely notes that there are problems in Bosnian society, without attempting to understand their essence or the objective reasons for which they have emerged. We hope that in the future the High Representative will — to a greater extent — focus on assessments of the implementation of his mandate and the activity of the structure that was entrusted to him during the reporting period, and that he will limit himself strictly to the issues having to do with Dayton.Moreover, we expect the High Representative to bear in mind and be respectful of the views of all of the peoples of that State. That is why we consider inappropriate for him to present his views with regard to his support for the activities of a number of specialized bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina dealing with the fulfilment of the criteria required for the country to launch the programme of action leading to NATO membership. In pushing the NATO topic, Mr. Inzko is acting counter to his basic task, which is to seek unifying factors for the country. In fact, he is siding with but a part of Bosnian society. As is well known, there are other views in the country — ones that are far from being in favour of NATO membership.

We also believe that the topic of reallocating defence property is one that should be considered exclusively as one of the conditions for winding down the mechanism of the High Representative. It should be considered in an unbiased way, as it is intrinsically linked to the broader issue of civilian versus State property. He should — not just in words, but in fact — promote inter-Bosnian dialogue. That, after all, is the last open point on the 5+2 agenda. He should take more seriously the political agreements that were reached back in 2012 among the leaders of the country’s main parties.

That is also true of Euro-integration-related aspects. It would seem that, although a decision was made to split the two mandates in 2011, the High Representative continues to combine his position with that of the European Union Special Representative. A great many here today referred to the problem of Mostar. In that regard, it would seem that everyone has simply forgotten that it was interference by one of Mr. Inzko’s predecessors that led to the impasse around the prospect of forming a multi-ethnic society in the city. It is important that the report refer to the growing threat of Islamic extremism facing Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are convinced that that is one of the most serious problems and should, in the future, be featured as one of the key elements in the reports of the High Representative, whose task it is to fully promote the efforts of the competent bodies and organs in Bosnia and Herzegovina involved in combating terrorism, and to promote their cooperation with partner agencies in neighbouring countries and international agencies. The problem of terrorism presents yet another strong argument in favour of a unifying agenda. It is necessary to focus on strengthening inter-agency coordination for counter-terrorism purposes. Instead of that, the High Representative continues to focus on imaginary challenges to the Dayton Agreement, in an unjustified way, laying almost all responsibility for every problem in the stabilization process on the Bosnian Serbs. His discussion of the recent verdict of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia with regard to Karadžić and Šešelj reveals a similar approach. We believe that in that situation it would have been good for the High Representative to distance himself from his personal feelings, which would undoubtedly help the members of the Security Council to form an objective picture of the processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In that respect, we urge our colleagues in the Council, as we have done before, to familiarize themselves carefully with the latest report of the leadership of Republika Srpska on their implementation of the Dayton Agreement, which includes a great deal of useful information and constructive considerations for making progress on a settlement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We would like to especially emphasize the undesirability of any interference by the High Representative in discussions on the sensitive topic of reforming the Constitutional Court in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Attempts by the High Representative to preserve the current situation, where the last word in that key body lies with foreign justices, are counterproductive. It is important that the Bosnian parties, without foreign interference and without pressure or threats, be able to reach agreement on new parameters for membership in the Constitutional Court, alongside the agreements already achieved on clarifying the modalities for the operation of the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office, which would substantially contribute to overcoming the palpable crisis of confidence in the common Bosnian justice system.Let us turn now to the positive. We believe that it is useful to acknowledge the joint steps taken by the leadership of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to forge intergovernmental cooperation, including the first joint session of the Government of Serbia and the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in November 2015, as well the visit by the Head of the Government of Serbia, Mr. Vučić, to the Investment Development Conference in Srebrenica. The parties are quite capable of coexisting if no one interferes, and they can promote national reconciliation.Mindful of all those factors, we are in favour of a further reduction in the budget and personnel of the Office of the High Representative, based on the fact that the path towards transferring responsibility for the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Bosnians themselves is by now well justified and must continue to be appropriately reflected in the methods of action of the international presence. The time for protectorates is long gone. Under the current conditions, we consider the use by High Representative of his extraordinary authority under the “Bonn Powers” to be unacceptable. There can be no alternative to inter-Bosnian dialogue, free of external pressure. The creation of conditions for advancing such dialogue and for the search by the Bosnian parties of mutually acceptable options for reforms based on the Dayton principles is the priority task for the international community. Consolidating Bosnia and Herzegovina and ensuring the functionality of its central structures will be successful only if they are the result of consensus among the three constituent peoples. That, I believe, is an axiom.